THE STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD versus G. PREM RAJ

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1044 · Decided: 19-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1044 
THE STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD 
V. 
G. PREM RAJ 
(Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2007) 
NOVEMBER 19, 2009 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 13(1)(d) rlw s. 
13(2); 7 and 20 - Demand and acceptance of illegal 
gratification - Prosecution for - Complaint for demand of bribe 
C - Trap arranged- Phenolphthalein test proved positive - Two 
independent witnesses proving acceptance of illegal 
gratification - Conviction by trial court-Acquittal by High Court 
- High Court also directing reinstatement of the accused with 
all retiral benefits - On appeal, held: Acquittal not justified in 
D the facts of the case - The charge being uls. 7, presumption ul 
s. 20 could be raised - High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction 
in directing reinstatement of accused and writing off the 
departmental enquiry whereby he was found guilty -
Jurisdiction. 
E 
Respondent-accused was prosecuted u/s. 13(1)(d) r/ 
w s. 13(2) and s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
According to prosecution, PW1- complainant was 
awarded contract for construction. He met the 
respondent-accused for signature on the agreement and 
F preparation of detailed programme of work schedule. 
Accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 5,0001-
as its first instalment. PW.1 lodged a complaint alleging 
demand of bribe. PW. 1 stated that the accused had called 
him at a hotel for signing the agreement and for the 
payment of bribery. Trap was laid. Two witnesses (PWs 2 
G and 4) were called. PW2 was to accompany PW1, and PW4 
was required to go with the trap party. Agreement was 
signed in the hotel. Thereafter, accused and PW1, when 
reached near the scooter of the accused, he paid him the 
bribe money (treated currency notes) which the accused 
H 
1044 
} 
I-
STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD v. G. PREM RAJ 1045 
kept in the scooter bag. Thereafter accused handed over A 
_.. 
the copy of agreement to PW-1. Trap party reached and 
phenolphthalein test proved positive. Currency notes 
were seized. Trial Court convicted the accused. High 
Court, on appea·I, acquitted him. Hence, the present 
appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Unless the judgment of acquittal tends to 
.I. 
be perverse or unless the inferences drawn in the 1 
acquitting judgment were not at all reasonable, possibly c 
the acquittal should not be upset. However, in this case, 
there was no scope for recording of finding of acquittal. 
[Para 17] [1062-B] 
~ 
1.2. The theory of pressure i.e. the accused had to 
approach the complainant for getting the signature on the 
D 
contract under pressure of urgency, was of no 
consequence and could not be viewed as helpful to the 
defence. Even if the contract was to be got signed by PW-
1, the fact remains that for the purpose of contract, 
ultimately, respondent-accused had to give the detailed 
programme of work. The signatures of PW-1 could have 
E 
been obtained on the agreement and at that time, it was 
necessary that the work schedule was ready, which was 
to be prepared by the respondent-accused and it was for 
that purpose that the respondent-accused demanded the 
money. The High Court has not properly viewed at this 
F 
position that the bribe was demanded for completing the 
contract, worth about Rs.35 lakhs. [Para 7] [1053-8-D] 
1.3. The movement of the respondent-accused out of 
his office and going to the hotel after office hours at 6'0 
clock raises accusing finger towards the intentions of the 1 G 
respondent-accused. [Para 8] [1054-D-E] 
~ 
1.4. The High Courts without going into the details of 
the evidence, has merely come to the conclusion that no 
demand was made. If no demand was made, there was no 
reason for the respondent-accused to accept the money 
H 
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A 
offered by the complainant. The respondent-accused 
cannot deny that the money was actually touched by him. 
There is absolutely no cross-examination on the fact that 
when he dipped his finger in the solution of Sodium 
Carbonate, same turned pink, this is a very major 
8 
circumstance, that the High Court has failed to note and 
· explain, which shows that the High Court has taken a very 
casual attitude. That was a major circumstance and the 
most important incriminating circumstance, which was 
bound to be explained by the respondent-accused. [Para 
9] (1055-8-F] 
c 
1.5. The evidence of complainant was fully 
corroborated by the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.